Beverly Hills City Council May Blanketly Ban E-Cigarettes Tonight

Beverly Hills City Council has an urgent matter at hand! At
tonight’s meeting, the council will consider an “interim urgency
ordinance” that will declare a “moratorium of the establishment and
further operation of any electronic cigarette retailer.”
Remarkably, they are giving retailers two weeks notice:

“In order to allow retailers to amortize any investment in
e-cigarettes made before the adoption of the ordinance, retailers
who purchased e-cigarettes for resale prior to the date of adoption
of the ordinance will be able to continue to sell such cigarettes
for a period of two weeks after the adoption of the ordinance.
Selling e-cigarettes beyond the two weeks is a misdemeanor and is
punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment for up to
six months, or both.”

Along with the suggested moratorium on vape shops, there is a
separate
agenda
item that will extend all present smoking regulations to
electronic cigarettes. Read the rest of the proposed ordinance

here
.

Proponents of e-cigarettes fear that rash, local legislation
like this will set a precedent that will severly impact the
industry as a whole. For all the reasons that e-cigarettes
shouldn’t be regulated, watch
E-Cigarettes: Second-hand Smoke, Vaping, and the Price of FDA
Regulations
.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/beverly-hills-city-council-to-blanketly
via IFTTT

Because Of The Fed "Mortgage Market Liquidity Is As Bad As When Bear Stearns Failed"

Remember the main reason why the Fed should have tapered, namely the illiquidity in the bond market it is creating with its feverish pace of collateral extraction, and conversion of quality collateral into 500x fwd P/E dot com dot two stocks? Here to put it all in context is Scotiabank’s Guy Haselmann: “Through its QE policy, the Fed buys $3 of mortgages for every $1 of origination.  The consequence is that secondary mortgage market liquidity has been decimated: it is as bad as when Bear Stearns failed.” That’s just MBS for now. However, since the Fed has refused and refuses to taper, the same liquidity collapse is coming to Treasury’s first, then corporates, then ETFs, then REITs and everything else that the Fed will eventually monetize. Just like the BOJ.

As a post script, here are some other observations from Haselmann:

  • Moral Hazard has run wild due to Fed policies. Risk appetite, complacency, and market speculation are at elevated levels.  Buyers are scrambling to find assets to buy. As a result, there has been a surge in debt issuance, especially of riskier securities like covenant-lite loans, leveraged loans, and payment-in-kind bonds. 
  • The Fed does not have an inflation problem, simply because the $3 trillion+ it has created out of thin air has not been lent into the fractional reserve system.  In other words, the velocity of money has been falling.  The lack of visibility health care costs, the national fiscal budget, the tax code, regulatory rules and economic growth generally (to name a few), is so widespread that it is impossible to assess the financial logic behind potential capital investment projects. When this uncertainty fades, the velocity of money will rise and the Fed’s ability to control inflation with be challenged accordingly.
  • IPO’s have also come at a fierce pace, taking advantage of investors scrambling to put easy money to work; and who may not be giving enough attention to valuations and the risks involved.  Market pundits seem to fuel investor complacency with daily statements that equity P/E’s are historically cheap. However, comparing today’s “new normal” growth trajectory to the high growth period of the 1990’s seems misguided.  Furthermore, the current environment is unprecedented and the “E” is a rapidly moving target.
  • The P/E’s of the top 50 Russell 2000 stocks is over 45.  The P/E of Linkedin is 755, AOL’s is1278, Chipotle’s is 54.  After Twitter’s IPO tomorrow, the stock will trade near 42X revenues (because it has no “E”).  Now that is “cheap”- at least relative to where some stocks traded during the dot.com bubble.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/qo79Lhj0-Ug/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Because Of The Fed “Mortgage Market Liquidity Is As Bad As When Bear Stearns Failed”

Remember the main reason why the Fed should have tapered, namely the illiquidity in the bond market it is creating with its feverish pace of collateral extraction, and conversion of quality collateral into 500x fwd P/E dot com dot two stocks? Here to put it all in context is Scotiabank’s Guy Haselmann: “Through its QE policy, the Fed buys $3 of mortgages for every $1 of origination.  The consequence is that secondary mortgage market liquidity has been decimated: it is as bad as when Bear Stearns failed.” That’s just MBS for now. However, since the Fed has refused and refuses to taper, the same liquidity collapse is coming to Treasury’s first, then corporates, then ETFs, then REITs and everything else that the Fed will eventually monetize. Just like the BOJ.

As a post script, here are some other observations from Haselmann:

  • Moral Hazard has run wild due to Fed policies. Risk appetite, complacency, and market speculation are at elevated levels.  Buyers are scrambling to find assets to buy. As a result, there has been a surge in debt issuance, especially of riskier securities like covenant-lite loans, leveraged loans, and payment-in-kind bonds. 
  • The Fed does not have an inflation problem, simply because the $3 trillion+ it has created out of thin air has not been lent into the fractional reserve system.  In other words, the velocity of money has been falling.  The lack of visibility health care costs, the national fiscal budget, the tax code, regulatory rules and economic growth generally (to name a few), is so widespread that it is impossible to assess the financial logic behind potential capital investment projects. When this uncertainty fades, the velocity of money will rise and the Fed’s ability to control inflation with be challenged accordingly.
  • IPO’s have also come at a fierce pace, taking advantage of investors scrambling to put easy money to work; and who may not be giving enough attention to valuations and the risks involved.  Market pundits seem to fuel investor complacency with daily statements that equity P/E’s are historically cheap. However, comparing today’s “new normal” growth trajectory to the high growth period of the 1990’s seems misguided.  Furthermore, the current environment is unprecedented and the “E” is a rapidly moving target.
  • The P/E’s of the top 50 Russell 2000 stocks is over 45.  The P/E of Linkedin is 755, AOL’s is1278, Chipotle’s is 54.  After Twitter’s IPO tomorrow, the stock will trade near 42X revenues (because it has no “E”).  Now that is “cheap”- at least relative to where some stocks traded during the dot.com bubble.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/qo79Lhj0-Ug/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Everyone Knows Toronto's Mayor Is a Drunken Lout, but the Real Scandal Is That He Smoked Crack Once?

Which is more troubling: that
Toronto’s mayor has smoked crack on at least one occasion (as he

admitted
today) or that he attempts to mitigate that
transgression by saying he has a habit of getting so drunk that he
does stuff like that without remembering it? I’d say the latter
should be more worrisome to any Torontonian whose mind is not
clouded by arbitrary pharmacological prejudices. Here is what Mayor
Rob Ford told reporters today, after months of questions prompted
by a video that seemed to show him sucking on a crack pipe:

You asked me a question back in May, and you can repeat that
question. Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine. But no, do I—am I
an addict? No. Have I tried it? Probably, in one of my drunken
stupors, probably approximately about a year ago….

I wasn’t lying—you didn’t ask the correct questions. No, I’m not
an addict, and no, I do not do drugs. I made mistakes in the past,
and all I can do is apologize, but it is what it is….

I don’t even remember. Some of the stuff that you guys have seen
me—the state I’ve been in? It’s a problem.

No kidding. The New York Times notes
“several public occasions during which Mr. Ford acted boorishly and
appeared to be impaired.” Now he is saying—in his own defense, mind
you—that he frequently stumbles around town in a stupor, so what do
you expect? For all we know, smoking crack is the least of what
demon rum has driven him to.

As exercises in blame shifting go, I prefer Marion Barry’s

complaint
, upon being caught on tape in a similarly
embarrassing situation, that the “bitch set me up,” which had the
virtue of being true. By contrast, Ford says he “probably” did what
he is shown doing on video and furthermore that it was “about a
year ago,” but he can’t really be sure, what with all the
out-of-control drinking. He combines that wishy-washy confession
with a Clintonian claim that he spoke the literal truth when he
misled the public. At least Ford did not say that he lit the pipe
but did not inhale.

Still, despite crack’s fearsome reputation as a drug that
inevitably enslaves its users, there is littlle reason to doubt
Ford’s assertion that his not an crack addict. As I noted yesterday
in my Forbes column,
the vast majority of crack users do not become heavy consumers, and
those who do typically cut back or stop on their own. According to
the National
Survey on Drug Use and Health
, just 3 percent of Americans who
have tried this supposedly irresistible and inescapable drug have
smoked it in the last month. Furthermore, research by Columbia
neuropsychopharmacologist Carl Hart shows that even heavy users can
moderate their behavior in response to incentives—something Ford
evidently has trouble doing with respect to alcohol. If a drug is
interfering with Ford’s ability to do his job, that drug does not
seem to be crack.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/everyone-knows-torontos-mayor-is-a-drunk
via IFTTT

Everyone Knows Toronto’s Mayor Is a Drunken Lout, but the Real Scandal Is That He Smoked Crack Once?

Which is more troubling: that
Toronto’s mayor has smoked crack on at least one occasion (as he

admitted
today) or that he attempts to mitigate that
transgression by saying he has a habit of getting so drunk that he
does stuff like that without remembering it? I’d say the latter
should be more worrisome to any Torontonian whose mind is not
clouded by arbitrary pharmacological prejudices. Here is what Mayor
Rob Ford told reporters today, after months of questions prompted
by a video that seemed to show him sucking on a crack pipe:

You asked me a question back in May, and you can repeat that
question. Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine. But no, do I—am I
an addict? No. Have I tried it? Probably, in one of my drunken
stupors, probably approximately about a year ago….

I wasn’t lying—you didn’t ask the correct questions. No, I’m not
an addict, and no, I do not do drugs. I made mistakes in the past,
and all I can do is apologize, but it is what it is….

I don’t even remember. Some of the stuff that you guys have seen
me—the state I’ve been in? It’s a problem.

No kidding. The New York Times notes
“several public occasions during which Mr. Ford acted boorishly and
appeared to be impaired.” Now he is saying—in his own defense, mind
you—that he frequently stumbles around town in a stupor, so what do
you expect? For all we know, smoking crack is the least of what
demon rum has driven him to.

As exercises in blame shifting go, I prefer Marion Barry’s

complaint
, upon being caught on tape in a similarly
embarrassing situation, that the “bitch set me up,” which had the
virtue of being true. By contrast, Ford says he “probably” did what
he is shown doing on video and furthermore that it was “about a
year ago,” but he can’t really be sure, what with all the
out-of-control drinking. He combines that wishy-washy confession
with a Clintonian claim that he spoke the literal truth when he
misled the public. At least Ford did not say that he lit the pipe
but did not inhale.

Still, despite crack’s fearsome reputation as a drug that
inevitably enslaves its users, there is littlle reason to doubt
Ford’s assertion that his not an crack addict. As I noted yesterday
in my Forbes column,
the vast majority of crack users do not become heavy consumers, and
those who do typically cut back or stop on their own. According to
the National
Survey on Drug Use and Health
, just 3 percent of Americans who
have tried this supposedly irresistible and inescapable drug have
smoked it in the last month. Furthermore, research by Columbia
neuropsychopharmacologist Carl Hart shows that even heavy users can
moderate their behavior in response to incentives—something Ford
evidently has trouble doing with respect to alcohol. If a drug is
interfering with Ford’s ability to do his job, that drug does not
seem to be crack.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/everyone-knows-torontos-mayor-is-a-drunk
via IFTTT

A 14-Year-Old Girl Explains How We Can Stop The Addiction To Economic Growth

Via ClubOrlov blog,

[This week’s guest post is by Scott Erickson, who is an award-winning humor writer and the author of a satirical novel titled The Diary of Amy, the 14-Year-Old Girl Who Saved the Earth. I liked it. It is entirely disarming and strikes a good balance between humor and seriousness. There are enough jeremiads and diatribes and rants on this topic out there. Luckily, this isn’t one of them because Scott’s scathing social critique and mordant wit are delivered via a charming narrative device: a smart, earnest, precocious 14-year-old girl.]

A 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL EXPLAINS HOW WE CAN STOP THE ADDICTION TO ECONOMIC GROWTH THAT’S DESTROYING THE EARTH

Hi! I’m Amy Johnson-Martinez, the 14-year-old girl who’s saving the earth from environmental destruction. A lot of people don’t understand how the destruction of the earth is connected to our addiction to economic growth. Actually, a lot of people don’t even realize that we’re addicted!

Personally speaking, I think it’s kind of weird that economists don’t tell us about this. So I guess it takes a 14-year-old girl to tell you about it!

Economists always say, “The economy has to keep growing or else it will collapse.” But it can’t grow forever, because the earth is running out of resources. Actually, it’s already starting to happen. That’s a big reason why the economy is getting worse.

Our economy is giving us a totally stupid choice: Save the economy or save the earth. It won’t let us save both! I personally think that’s pretty crazy!

On my journey to save the earth from environmental destruction, I figured out pretty quickly that the main problem is the economy. Pretty much every time there’s an idea that would make things less destructive and more sustainable, the argument against it is always: “It will be bad for economic growth.”

That’s when I found out the economy has to grow or else it collapses. But when I asked why, nobody knew the answer. So I had to figure it out myself.

I looked at a bunch of economic books, but none of them said anything about why we’re addicted to economic growth. I couldn’t even find out how the economy could grow. That’s another basic question: How can money grow?

Isn’t that an interesting question?

This led to another question, “How is money introduced into the economy?”

The answer wasn’t easy to find. At first I thought the answer was that the government prints it, but that was back when I was young and naive. It turns out that the government prints only a tiny percentage of the money in circulation, and the rest is just promises, based on future growth (which is kind of weird if you think about it.)

Then I found out about “quantitative easing,” which sounds intellectually sophisticated. But it’s not the “real” answer, because quantitative easing only creates more promises. And the only way to live up to these promises is by overall growth of the economy. So we’re back to where we started: How does the economy grow?

Since I couldn’t find any answers in books about contemporary economics, I tried looking at books about the history of economics. I focused a lot on John Maynard Keynes, who was from England and invented the basic economic ideas we still use.

I found something interesting that he wrote in 1933. It’s the first thing I found that talks about economic growth. Basically, he thinks it’s important to have the economy grow, but when everybody is doing OK then growth should stop:

Suppose that a hundred years hence we are eight times better off than today. The economic problem may be solved.

The economic problem, the struggle for subsistence, always has been the primary, most pressing problem of the human race. Thus for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to live wisely and agreeably and well.

When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. The love of money will be recognized for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.

I see us free, therefore, to return to some of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue – that avarice is a vice, that the exaction of usury is a misdemeanor, and the love of money is detestable.

But the prediction that economic growth would end poverty hasn’t happened. In fact, even with all the economic growth that’s happened since then, poverty is getting worse. Obviously, the idea that economic growth will end poverty isn’t right.

I had to look up what the word “avarice” means, and basically it means “greed.” I also had to look up what “usury” means. It means to charge interest on loaning money. It’s a religious word and at one time all religions were against it as unethical.

Even though the quote was interesting, it didn’t answer the question about how money can grow. So I had to go back even farther. The ideas of John Maynard Keynes were influenced by another guy – John Law.

What a weird person! According to one book, in addition to being a banker and an economist he was “a gambler, swindler, rake and adventurer forced to flee the British Isles after killing an opponent in a duel.” This kind of person helped invent our economic system?

I found something in a book about John Law that seemed important: “Law made clear the distinction between a passive treasury, where money just accumulated, and an active bank, where money was created.”

Banks create money? That was news to me! I thought they just kept money and loaned some of it out.

The answer has to do with the “fractional reserve system” which started in the 1700s. It used to be that money was sort of a “receipt” for gold. The receipt was called a “banknote,” which was printed by the bank. But then some bankers figured out they could print more “receipts” than the gold they had, therefore they only had a “fraction” of the gold compared to the “receipts” (actual money).

That explains how it came to be that banks could create money, but it didn’t explain how money could “grow” – since banks were only allowed to print a certain percentage extra.

Then, some bankers figured out a way to become even more wealthy with this “extra money” they could print themselves. What they did is to give out the money in the form of a loan. Since they charged interest on the loan, they would get back more than they gave out. This next part is where the addiction starts.

Let’s say you get a loan for $100, but because of the interest you pay back $110. Here’s an interesting question: Where did that extra $10 come from?

It didn’t come from you, since you can’t create money. Only banks can – by making loans. So the extra money could only come from one place: More loans! If you trace money to where money comes from, it almost always comes from a loan.

People can get personal loans, but what’s more important for the economy is business loans – loans to start or expand a business. Of course all the loans have interest, which means paying bac
k more money. But we’ve already figured out that money is “created” by banks issuing loans. So to pay off past loans, somewhere else in the economy there has to be new loans which create more money. But then THOSE loans have to be paid off with money, which means MORE loans.

It always comes back to the banks making more loans to pay off the existing loans. This has been going on for hundreds of years, which is how the economy “grows.”

Economic growth needs more money, but more money needs more economic growth, which needs more money. And it doesn’t stop. It can’t stop.

That’s not only how the economy grows, but why it HAS to grow. We can never get to a point where growth is “enough.”

This is why we’re addicted to economic growth. We’re not creating money; we’re creating debt!

Like with any addiction, we keep doing it even when it’s not working any more. This is why even when it’s obvious that economic growth isn’t solving unemployment or ending poverty or doing any of the other stuff it says it can do, we keep trying it anyway. It’s why even though we have more money than ever before in history, we still need more.

The funny thing is that the solution is super-easy. All we have to do is stop the banks from creating money as debt.

You know what’s really interesting? I discovered that our greatest president Abraham Lincoln figured this out and tried to stop it. Lincoln tried to fix the problem by having the government print a kind of money called “greenbacks”—$450 million of interest-free money. But the banks did NOT like this because they wanted to create all the money themselves! So they bought up all the “greenbacks” and forced the government to buy them back in exchange for gold.

Lincoln had the right idea, but he didn’t go far enough. We have to eliminate interest on ALL money. The answer is actually super-easy.

To end the addiction to economic growth and save the earth, this is what we need to do: End the creation of money as interest-bearing loans. Put an end to fractional reserve banking and make it so banks can’t create money. Then give the U.S. Treasury the exclusive right to issue U.S. currency free of debt.

Of course, the big banks won’t like this, because they make money from keeping us addicted. But as I learned in school, we live in a democracy which means companies aren’t the boss of us; we’re the boss of them. Yay for democracy!

Let’s stop the addiction before the economy collapses and destroys the earth, which is very beautiful. In fact, it’s my favorite planet!


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/-blhaLn39uA/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Illinois House Approves Gay Marriage

The Illinois
House has voted 61-54 to allow same-sex marriage. The measure will
be sent back to the Senate to have the effective date changed.

Governor Pat Quinn has said he will sign the bill into law.

From the
AP
:

A historic vote Thursday in the Illinois House positioned that
state to become the largest in the heartland to legalize gay
marriage, following months of arduous lobbying efforts by both
sides in President Barack Obama’s home state.

Lawmakers voted 61-54 to send the measure back to the Senate to
change the bill’s effective date, just a technical change since the
chamber already approved the measure in February. The measure will
then head to Gov. Pat Quinn, who has pledged to sign it into the
law.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don’t forget you
can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us
at @reason247

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/illinois-house-approves-gay-marriage
via IFTTT

Will Legalizing Pot Result in More or Less Drinking?

Among the eight
“enforcement priorities” that the Justice Department
expects
states to address in exchange for prosecutorial
restraint vis-á-vis newly legal pot businesses is “preventing
drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health
consequences associated with marijuana use.” Last week I
noted
an article in which two economists, D. Mark Anderson of
Montana State University and Daniel Rees of the University of
Colorado, predicted that, on balance, the “public health
consequences” of marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington
will be positive, mainly because more pot smoking will be
accompanied by less drinking. The same issue of the Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management
 includes a less
sanguine take
on the question by Rosalie Liccardo Pacula,
co-director of the RAND Corporation’s Drug Policy Research Center,
and University of South Carolina criminologist Eric Sevigny. Pacula
and Sevigny warn that research in this area is complicated by the
fact that legal restrictions on cannabis in states with medical
marijuana laws vary across states and over time within the same
state:

We find that states restricting broad access to medical
marijuana by requiring annual registration of patients have lower
marijuana prevalence rates among youth and adult[s] and lower
admissions to treatment than states without such requirements.
However, states allowing home cultivation and legal dispensaries
are both positively associated with recreational use and, in
particular, heavy use.

Pacula and Sevigny also note that states with legally protected
dispensaries tend to see statistically significant drops in price
and increases in potency—which strike me as benefits of
legalization but look like costs to analysts who worry that
cheaper, stronger pot will magnify the hazards associated with
marijuana consumption. 

On the question of whether marijuana and alcohol are substitutes
or complements, Anderson and Rees think the former is more likely,
while Pacula and Sevigny say the evidence “remains mixed.”
Although they acknowledge that the hazards associated with
marijuana itself pale beside the cost of treating its production,
sale, and use as crimes, Pacula and Sevigny worry that the cost of
increased alcohol consumption could swamp the benefits of
legalization if more pot smoking is accompanied by more
drinking:

Although there are small recognized health costs associated with
using marijuana and treating dependence, these costs are dwarfed in
comparison to the criminal justice savings associated with
legalizing and regulating the substance. Even if consumption were
assumed to rise by 100 percent, the savings of liberalizing
policies would dwarf the known health costs associated with using
marijuana. However, all potential savings associated with marijuana
legalization could be entirely erased, and tremendous losses
incurred, if alcohol and marijuana turn out to be economic
complements, particularly for young adults.

Notably, both Colorado and Washington plan to tax marijuana at

a much higher rate
than alcohol, which is just the opposite of
what Anderson, Rees, Pacula, and Sevigny presumably would
recommend. Anderson and Rees note the disparity (citations
omitted):

The current excise tax on liquor sold in Colorado is 60.26
cents/l, which represents roughly 3 percent of the retail price of
Jim Beam Whiskey purchased by the bottle. In comparison, Colorado
is set to impose a 15 percent excise tax and a 10 percent special
sales tax on marijuana sales. Washington is considering taxing
producers, sellers, and buyers at a total rate of 75 percent.

Today Colorado voters are deciding whether to approve the
proposed excise and sales taxes, both of which can be raised as
high as 15 percent. Based on how those taxes will affect retail
prices, they are 10
times
as high as the state tax on distilled spirits, by
far the most heavily taxed alcoholic beverage. And that’s before
considering local marijuana taxes, which in Denver (assuming voters
approve) will add another sales tax of up to 15 percent.

I am no fan of social engineering through taxation. But it’s
pretty clear that Colorado and Washington are not even trying to
set tax rates based on the relative hazards posed by these
products.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/will-legalizing-pot-result-in-more-or-le
via IFTTT

Hope(less)

3 months later and it appears hope has reverted (once again) to its new normal reality. “Just one more quarter,” we are sure, will be the clarion call from all asunder…

(it seems the hatchet has been taken to Q4 – one-off of course, due to the shutdown – which incidentally had no effect whatsoever on any survey or soft-data macro or the stock market)

 

(h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer)


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/QkM0mV8tGk0/story01.htm Tyler Durden

"I" For Inevitable

Submitted by Simon Black via Sovereign Man blog,

Just over 400-years ago today, a group of 13 conspirators were caught trying to assassinate King James I of England and blow up the House of Lords in what became known as the Gunpowder Treason.

If you’ve ever seen the movie V for Vendetta, you know the story. Guy Fawkes was found underneath the House of Lords with three dozen barrels of gunpowder… and to this day, his effigy is still burned annually in commemoration of the event.

Fundamentally, the Gunpowder Treason was about freedom. The English monarchy at the time was controlling nearly every aspect of the economy and their subjects’ lives– from what they could wear to how they could worship.

“Sumptuary laws” which regulated private behavior were commonplace. Elizabeth I, for example, re-introduced a beard tax on all facial hair grown in excess of two weeks.

She also published long lists, categorized by social class, dictating precisely what color and type of garment her subjects were required to wear.

It turns out these sumptuary laws were just an early form of state-sponsored corporate welfare; the English textile industry had paid Elizabeth huge sums of money in exchange for royal decrees about knitted caps and woolen socks.

As a consequence, a great deal of English labor and disposable income was misallocated towards silly garments instead of being put to more productive uses… and the country was in an almost perpetual state of stagnation.

Not to mention, English finances deteriorated under Elizabeth. By 1600, state expenditures were 23% greater than tax revenue, which would be the equivalent of a $550 billion budget deficit in the US today. Not exactly a trivial figure.

James I, Elizabeth’s successor, continued to spend extravagantly and indebt the English economy, often showering taxpayer funds on a handful of favored nobles.

By the time James’s successor Charles I came to power, the monarchy’s credit was running so thin that Charles had to force people to loan him money; those who refused were imprisoned and had their property confiscated.

Unsurprisingly, civil war broke out in 1642. Charles I was executed in 1649, and the genocidal dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell dominated England for the next decade.

When you think about it, this collapse was inevitable.

For decades prior, the entire English economy was under the control of a single individual who massively indebted the state, impeded growth, and reduced people’s individual freedoms. Not exactly a recipe for long-term success.

The Gunpowder Treason of November 5, 1605 may have been a failure for the conspirators, but given enough time, a system so screwed up, so unsustainable, was destined to collapse on itself.

We’re not so different in the west today.

We have our own sumptuary laws, regulating everything from tobacco consumption to what foods we can/cannot eat. We have our own state-sponsored corporate welfare. We’re comically indebted.

And just like the English monarchs, we have a tiny elite that controls absolutely everything about our economy– taxation, regulation, and the supply of money.

Needless to say, this is also unsustainable. And history shows that these types of unsustainable systems will always collapse under their own weight.

Is it wise to think that this time is any different?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/82DJ3JBDgvI/story01.htm Tyler Durden